Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > >> On Dec 14, Alastair McKinstry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> So where do people think the bug lies? >>> - Should libdl be compiled into libnewt.a ? >>> >> Yes. >> > > Is there even a libdl.a? > > Yes, but its fairly strange, nm /usr/lib/libdl.a, to see what I mean; no dlerror(), all the other symbols resolve to 00000, a stub, I think).
> And what if I have libfoo.a libbar.a libblub.a all using dlopen? > Should they all have it linked in so I get 3 copies of the code? > > No, if static libs need other libs the aplication has to link them in > at the end. Likely as a result of *.la files. > > >>> - Should the static version of libnewt be built differently so as to >>> not call dlopen()? >>> >> Maybe. >> > > That would be an option. But then the static version would have less > features. > Differences in functionality between the dynamic and static approaches seems to be the least-pleasant solution. (both in runtime terms, not behaving as expected, and also in terms of _how_ to build it.) It looks like providing .la and pkg-config files to explain how to build it statically looks like necessary. newt doesn't ordinarily use libtool, so I need to generate a .la file and include it in the libnewt-dev. Currently testing this solution. >>> - if so, any recommendations on how? >>> >> Remove the feature? >> >> -- >> ciao, >> Marco >> > > MfG > Goswin > > >
